1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Busan Shipping Daegu Building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On October 9, 2012, the Defendant issued a prior notice of disposition regarding the corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the building of this case was illegally expanded” and ordered the voluntary removal of the extended part on October 24, 2012, and urged the Plaintiff to implement the corrective order on November 26, 2012.

C. However, the Defendant, who did not comply with the above corrective order on December 17, 2012, ordered the Plaintiff to impose a non-performance penalty and imposed KRW 2,128,000 on January 8, 2013 (hereinafter “the first disposition”). D.

The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Busan Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission on the instant disposition No. 1, but was dismissed on February 9, 2013.

E. On October 23, 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order on the part of the extension without permission of the building of this case to the Plaintiff. On November 25, 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order on the imposition of charges for compelling compliance, and issued a disposition imposing KRW 2,063,000 for compelling compliance on December 16, 2013 (hereinafter “the second disposition”).

F. On October 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff regarding the extension of the building of this case without permission. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant issued a corrective order to impose charges for compelling compliance on the Plaintiff, and issued a disposition imposing KRW 2,187,000 for compelling compliance on January 15, 2015 (hereinafter “third disposition”).

G. On July 7, 2015, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay KRW 6,378,000 for a non-performance penalty based on the first, second, and third dispositions, and the Plaintiff filed an objection against the first disposition with the Defendant on August 10, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case argues that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful because the period for filing the lawsuit of this case is too excessive. Thus, Article 20 (1) and Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act.